Should Great Art Be beyond The Need For Explanation?

[peter]

I recently attended an installation by Iranian artist Imran Quershi in my local cathedral which comprised of 30,000 pieces of paper, each printed with a picture drawn on a Canadian pavement a year or two ago, screwed up and piled into a grey/green mountainous construct in the corner of the nave. The work was accompanied by a printed sheet in which the artist explained his thinking behind the piece - but for me this served rather to be a distraction from the work rather than an aid to it's understanding. Perhaps it was the setting of the work in a place of worship that made the artist feel the need to explain it rather than just allow it to stand alone for what it was - but it got me to thinking as to what extent a great work [and sorry Imran, this was good but not in my view great] should be able to resonate with the viewer at a level above the need for a verbal accompaniment of 'what it is about'.

Lets take Guernica as an example. Certainly the title alone would give us a clue as to where Picasso was coming from when he created his masterpiece - but had he just say numbered the work and given no background information at all, would we still marvel at it,revere it as one of the great 20C. works, consider it worthy of learned discussion and academic dispute: saying we didn't know that it was by Picasso.
I've seen many works, sculptures by Moore, paintings by Pollock, of which I have no idea whatsoever of what they are supposed to 'mean', of the inspiration and thinking behind them, but have still been able to derive great pleasure just from the form, the use of colour, shade, light and dark, on their own merit. but how much have I missed by virtue of not having done the background work ....and as with Quershi's work could such a knowledge actually detract from the simple aesthetic pleasure that a viewing unbridled with the academic baggage of knowledge can bring

[Avatar]

Hmmmm.

I'm of two minds on this I think...On the one hand, if an artwork is great, it probably doesn't need an explanation.

On the other, it can be nice to have an insight into the artists thought process.

But yes, it can certainly detract from it when that thought process is more mundane that the work itself seems to suggest.

Leaving the work open to the viewers interpretation can allow them to elevate it beyond your intentions.

--A

[peter]

Yes Av - you've hit the nail on the head: in the case I refer to, the explanation was simply to mundane, too prosaic to stand alongside the craggy pile of grey and green, almost volcanic in appearance, that the artist had created.

[Avatar]

Of course, I understand the urge to explain...you don't want them to miss the point. OR worse...see the wrong one.

Certainly I've seen things read into my own stuff that I never intended.

--A